[Bug 27140] New: [xslt3ts] match-144

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27140] New: [xslt3ts] match-144

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27140

            Bug ID: 27140
           Summary: [xslt3ts] match-144
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Working drafts
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSLT 3.0 Test Suite
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]

In test match-144 there are two template rules that match the same node:

<xslt:template match="element(*, pre:partNumberType)">

and

<xslt:template match="element(*, pre:partIntegerUnion)">

This is because partIntegerUnion is a union type with partNumberType as one of
its members.

The test results are assuming that pre:partNumberType will match. But in fact
the match is ambiguous, so the later rule in document order should be taken.

This test demonstrates an incompatiblity between 3.0 and 2.0, caused by changes
to the handling of unions in the XPath 3.0 type rules.

I propose to resolve it by adding priorities to the rules.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27140] [xslt3ts] match-144

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27140

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
Also affects tests match-145, match-164, and match-169. Possibly also, subject
to confirmation, match-211.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27140] [xslt3ts] match-144

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27140

--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
The situation with match-211 is (as suspected) different. I think the expected
results are correct; Saxon was getting them wrong because of a bug (failing to
recognize a Union type V as being derived-from U when V is derived from U by
restriction.)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.